Not sure what to think about that one. It's true that, as the article says, there have already been an awful lot of David Copperfield adaptations. Now don't go whaling on me, Nibs; you know I love DC. :-) I truly do. It just seems strange that they would have chosen to do it yet again -- and when there's a feature film in the works, too. They must have known that they'd have success with whatever adaptation they chose to do (hello, Bleak House? Little Dorrit? Good numbers, lots of Emmys?). Wouldn't they? So why stick with the "warhorses"?
Well, no one seems to agree on the reason, and there's lots of "he said/they said," and it's all very mysterious. One thing is particularly worrisome, though: the BBC spokesman's remark about "resting" Dickens. I wonder how long this "rest" is supposed to last. They can't have forgotten already about the bicentennial coming up . . . can they?